Fake? Strike One

Okay, Ive been looking over Joao's 12 second board and Ive come to the conclusion that there is no possible way that anyone can complete that board in 12 seconds. At the fastest, maybe 17 or 18, but surely not 12!!!! I was wrong about Sriram's 2 sec. board and I might be wrong about this one, so respond to this if you disagree with me. But there's just no way!

Lance Votroubek antwortete:

It looks like his 12 second board is doable in 12 seconds... coming from a person who can't even break 20 in intermediate. But if you are saying that he is faking it (I'm not accusing or anything), it wouldn't be so intelligent of him to claim to have a world record, ya know?

Joe Nuss hielt die 12 auch für echt:

for what its worth, i think joao did it. a lot of the board openened with that one click, and i think if he played a near flawless game he could have done it. however, that would raise the question that if he got a 12 on that kind of crappy board, how did he not get even better on a really good board? [...] i mean, ive gotten better boards than that before.

Joe, I went from 32 in September to 18 on Nov. 21. A considerable jump in a short amount of time, yes, but listen here. I got 17 on Jan 2. I havent been close since. Yes you can go quickly thorugh the 20's, but once you get into the teens, breaking your records every month (or less in this case) is nearly impossible. Yes, you can get very lucky and get a great board and take off three or four seconds off your PR, but Joao's board is not great. A sweeper with an expert time of 38 would have a hard time playing through that board in under 15 seconds. Yes I may sound harsh, but there is no way, ANYBODY can get through that board in 12 seconds!

Fake? Strike Three

Not to be a dork or anything but [...] I also doubt it because on the screen shot of his beginner the board was 9x9 and all the others are 8x8 which makes it hard to believe the 12 and his other scores.

Dieser neue Sachvrhalt überzeugten Joe:

ok, joao=fake. that 9x9 beginner proves it. thats pretty funny, too :). take him off the lists, damien, you're second fastest sweeper in the world now, man! good job! :)

James Shannon

A friend of mine told me I should consider looking up the minesweeper records and submitting my times. I was downloading some software on his machine for him and was sweeping while I was waiting. He watched me get a 63 on expert and got very excited. I promised him I would look into it.

I have attached a video of my most recent expert game--tied for my best time (38s). If you are interested, a bit about my minesweeping history follows.

I first learned to play minesweeper when I was seven, but I didn't really play much until I was 11 or 12. I stopped playing on beginner and intermediate about two and a half years ago (personal best of 1s and 19s respectively). In those days I played maybe an hour a week and had an expert time of 119s. Around July of 2000, I developed a bad case of insomnia. I slept on average 3 hours a week for 7 months. It was not that long at all before I was completely bored with staring at the ceiling night after night and I would sweep to pass the time. By the time I started sleeping healthily again, my expert time was down to 44s. I only play about an hour a day now, just to keep my speed up.

Daniela Weingut

WHAT HAVE I DONE??? Yesterday I managed only 7 HOURS of sweeping! I start doing things that have nothing to do with Minesweeper! Today I'll spend 13 hours playing Minesweeper. [...] I still make many mistakes with the new playing technique. When I practice more often, I make less mistakes. My speed has already improved.

1 Nov 2001 in the Guestbook:

I have access to the net only sporadically now, so if you don't hear from me for a long time, don't worry. I'm still going to break my best time because I can still play Minesweeper on my second computer which has no internet access. Only Camtasia doesn't run like a dream there, so I can only record at 5 frames/second. And yes, switching the versions is really better for speed. I tried it out today. I played on a 16*16 board with 39 mines (what if I get the dreamboard and lose it?) and played as fast as possible. I made a 23.

23 Nov 2001 in the Guestbook:

I can tell you how to go below 100. I did it this way: I forced myself to play slowly for about one month (after I got 136). At least a couple of times in a day I really wanted to go fast, but I didn't do it. After some time I couldn't stand it any more, I just couldn't hold myself back, played fast and went from 136 to 96 and after a few minutes to 85. Between the 96 and the 85 I got a 35 on int and a 6 on beg. This may sound silly, but it works. BTW, you can see a 57 no marking video in about 3 days.

I just got a 77 [...] and finally a 57! It feels so good. I only have
the 57 on video, it's in the files section. Oh dear, I'm so happy!

Matt McGinley replied to Addicts congratulating Daniela for her fake Expert video. Owen Fox wrote a strongly worded reply in the Guestbook and accused her of cheating. However, it was impossible for her to have cheated...because someone had watched her play!

Daniela and Andrea

Andrea wrote the Guestbook and announced that Daniela was her sister. The game had to be real, because she watched Daniela play. Several people continued to attack the video as a fake, which led to an amusing exchange of letters. Andrea claimed that Daniela was honest and did not know how to cheat, and that strange behaviour in the video was due to errors from running Camtasia on an old computer.

Her persistant arguments convinced David Barry and Owen Fox to that Andrea and Daniela were the same person. Andrea had strong arguments against this:

I'm really her sister and not her. She hates Linkin Park, it's my favourite group; she hates loud music and dancing; she has never tried to drink alcoholic drinks, because she thinks it affects her sweeping. she's my opposite, because I like all these things and you see, she hates MTV.

Perhaps Andrea was telling the truth? A month earlier, Daniela apologised for a post in the Guestbook by claiming her sister had written it.

Cheater or a Joker?

Matt McGinley and Owen Fox were convinced Daniela was a cheater. Roelof Smit and David Barry believed the video had to be a joke, because it was so badly made. Admitting that the game was a joke would have saved Daniela. However, she insisted that it was real:

If I really wanted to cheat, I would've... ...written a Visual Basic application that gives me the dream board. ...made a better intermediate time. ...used the League version and I would have written an application that makes the timer go three times slower. ...made a new world record. ...done it a long time before.

We Have a Cheater

Several mistakes in the video, such as flags appearing after the cursor had left squares, could be attributed to a very slow frame rate in the video. One obvious mistake is when Chording occurs in one part of the board while she is solving elsewhere. Although some of the solving is brilliant, much of it is horribly innefficient. The worst mistake is that the timer stays at 0 for the entire game!

Others factors to consider: Daniela claimed to play more than 12 hours every day; Daniela knew how to cheat and could program; Daniela claimed a jump from 136 to 85 in a single day; Daniela scored 85 and then claimed she would provide a 57 second video in three days using her new technique!

Players started getting really annoyed with Daniela. Things finally calmed down when Joe Nuss posted the final comment on the topic:

why doesnt everyone cool out? it's obvious damien won't except daniela's scores; if everyone is so hard core anti-her, why dont you just not give her the satisfaction of attention? duh and im assuming the "obvious flaw" that someone mentioned before is the fact that the timer doesnt move and stays at 0, yes? why anyone is even looking beyond that to minute points such as when the smiley face changes to sunglasses and her style of play and the jerkiness of the animation? rest easy fellas; daniela won't be on the records list next time it's updated.